Jim's Watch City Simply VOriental Review.

[Worknman]

Had it in my cart and by the time I went to check out it was gone. ?

 

[labrax]

Went and picked up 4oz this morning. I believe the gentleman behind the counter said he had only one left in store (backroom). Had one bowl in a new MM Rob Roy I bought there too. I liked the first bowl and thought it really started to have a lot of nice flavors in the middle third of bowl.

 

[pantsBoots]

Received some today and have to say, I found the Oriental eclipsed by the virginias. It was there, but nowhere near as prominent as I expected (or hoped). Perhaps some time in the jar will marry it together.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

The bowl I have smoked was very good, I definitely feel the Virginia’s dominate, but to me the Orientals add a lot of subtle highlights. This may be sacrilege, but I did not reorder Watch City’s Simply Red or R&B. I would this. A very interesting, well balanced, blend.

 

[tfdickson]

I had my first bowl this afternoon, loved it. The Simply Red component was prominent at the beginning but the orientals gained steam throughout and dominated by the end. I love Simply Red but this struck me as fuller bodied and more complex. As good as Simply Red is on its own, between this and Rouxgaroux I’m thinking it’s use as a base will be It’s highest calling.

 

[mordy18]

Full disclosure: I had an advisory hand in the development of this blend, but it is Ernie’s creation. The very floral, fragrant, zesty Macedonian Prilep provides a lot of earth, wood, herbs, vegetation, tingly spices, mild sweetness, a fair amount of dry sourness, and light bitterness and smoke as the lead component. The mature, fermented red Virginias offer tangy ripe dark fruit, earth, wood, bread, sugar, lightly tart and tangy citrus, a few blades of grass, a pinch of spice and a small vinegar note. The stoved Virginia is almost as obvious as the red Va. Its aspects include tangy stewed dark fruit, earth, wood, bread, and sugar. These two Virginias are important supporting players. The bright Virginia possesses tart and tangy citrus, plenty of grass, mildly tart lemon, vegetation, sugar, floralness, toast, a couple drops of honey, and very light acidity. It is a couple of notches ahead of the condiment level. The strength, nic-hit and taste levels are a step past the medium mark. It won’t bite or get harsh, and has few rough edges. The spice content has a little potency, so I suggest a casual puffing cadence at best. I also recommend a wide bowl to fully capture all of the nuances and complexities. Burns clean, and fairly cool at a moderate pace with a very consistent, deeply rich, tart and tangy sweet and sour, floral, spicy, savory flavor that extends to pleasantly lingering after taste. The room note is stronger. Barely leaves any dampness in the bowl, and requires an average number of relights. Not an all day smoke, but it is a filling, repeatable experience during your smoking day. Four stars out of four.

I apologize in advance, but honestly I dont get these reviews. Even if you have an extremely refined pallette, you describe: vegetation from both the macedonian and the bright vas (any difference, how can you tell which is from which); wood from the macedonian, red Vas AND stoved vas; tingly spices from the macedonian and a “pinch of spice” from the red vas; tangy ripe dark fruit from the red vas and tangy ripe stewed fruit from the dark. And so on.

I know many think jiminks reviews are the be all and end all, and I appreciate all the effort, but to be honest there is just too much information in there to help me. And the repeated overlap in tasting notes between multiple tobaccos - Im not buying that anyone can suss out dark ripe fruit vs dark stewed fruit and tell which type of tobaccos provide them. I personally find much simpler reviews more helpful.

 

[dquisenberry]

I apologize in advance, but honestly I dont get these reviews. Even if you have an extremely refined pallette, you describe: vegetation from both the macedonian and the bright vas (any difference, how can you tell which is from which); wood from the macedonian, red Vas AND stoved vas; tingly spices from the macedonian and a “pinch of spice” from the red vas; tangy ripe dark fruit from the red vas and tangy ripe stewed fruit from the dark. And so on.

I know many think jiminks reviews are the be all and end all, and I appreciate all the effort, but to be honest there is just too much information in there to help me. And the repeated overlap in tasting notes between multiple tobaccos - Im not buying that anyone can suss out dark ripe fruit vs dark stewed fruit and tell which type of tobaccos provide them. I personally find much simpler reviews more helpful.

Why I love the ability to scroll right past things I don’t get or agree with so I can limit myself from getting frustrated at others rightful opinions.

 

[mordy18]

Why I love the ability to scroll right past things I don’t get or agree with so I can limit myself from getting frustrated at others rightful opinions.

I agree. But this is a forum for open respectful discussion isnt it? Again, no disrespect intended. Just expressing a layperson’s honest opinion.

 

[JimInks]

I apologize in advance, but honestly I dont get these reviews. Even if you have an extremely refined pallette, you describe: vegetation from both the macedonian and the bright vas (any difference, how can you tell which is from which); wood from the macedonian, red Vas AND stoved vas; tingly spices from the macedonian and a “pinch of spice” from the red vas; tangy ripe dark fruit from the red vas and tangy ripe stewed fruit from the dark. And so on.

I know many think jiminks reviews are the be all and end all, and I appreciate all the effort, but to be honest there is just too much information in there to help me. And the repeated overlap in tasting notes between multiple tobaccos - Im not buying that anyone can suss out dark ripe fruit vs dark stewed fruit and tell which type of tobaccos provide them. I personally find much simpler reviews more helpful.

I can't explain how I taste what I taste outside of experience and genetics. If you can't understand it or you don't believe I can do that, as you are implying, that truly is your problem and not mine.

As far as my reviews not working for you, there's nothing I can do about that either. You have to go with whatever makes you feel comfortable.

 

[sablebrush52]

m not buying that anyone can suss out dark ripe fruit vs dark stewed fruit and tell which type of tobaccos provide them. I personally find much simpler reviews more helpful.

You can when you've sampled the separate blending components. Part of one's education is buying blending tobaccos and smoking them individually. You get a sense of what that component brings to the table. Then you get to experience the alchemy that's part of blending these components and the surprising ways they influence each other in a blend.
The respect that jiminks has earned from blenders speaks for itself.

 

[jguss]

You can when you've sampled the separate blending components. Part of one's education is buying blending tobaccos and smoking them individually. You get a sense of what that component brings to the table. Then you get to experience the alchemy that's part of blending these components and the surprising ways they influence each other in a blend.
The respect that jiminks has earned from blenders speaks for itself.

I’m with Jesse on this one. There’s always a very steep, essentially logarithmic curve, leading from the inexperienced, to the enthusiast, to the gifted amateur, to the professional. The gap between the last two in particular is nothing short of a chasm. You see this in almost every human endeavor where native talent, repetition, and application come into play (music and photography are just two examples). It’s tempting for those lower down the curve to dismiss what they don’t understand; but that’s an assumption grounded in inferior experience and expertise. We do live in a democracy, more or less, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally educated and based on relevant fact and comparison. This of course is why reviews, and reviewers, exist and why many people look to them for information on what's out there.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

I’m with Jesse on this one. There’s always a very steep, essentially logarithmic curve, leading from the inexperienced, to the enthusiast, to the gifted amateur, to the professional. The gap between the last two in particular is nothing short of a chasm. You see this in almost every human endeavor where native talent, repetition, and application come into play (music and photography are just two examples). It’s tempting for those lower down the curve to dismiss what they don’t understand; but that’s an assumption grounded in inferior experience and expertise. We do live in a democracy, more or less, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally educated and based on relevant fact and comparison. This of course is why reviews, and reviewers, exist and why many people look to them for information on what's out there.

Good analysis. I'll readily admit to being a rank amateur that knows what I like.

 

[mordy18]

Thanks for the clarifications and I realize that my comment came off as way too critical. Should have posed questions instead. I take it that when jiminks or another experienced reviewer detects “smoke” or “sugar” or whatever from three different component tobaccos it doesnt mean that he can detect three different variations of the same flavor but rather is explaining that the smoke, or sugar or whatever has its source in three component of tobaccos. More a detailed description of the components and why they are there?

 

[UncleRasta]

Thanks for the clarifications and I realize that my comment came off as way too critical. Should have posed questions instead. I take it that when jiminks or another experienced reviewer detects “smoke” or “sugar” or whatever from three different component tobaccos it doesnt mean that he can detect three different variations of the same flavor but rather is explaining that the smoke, or sugar or whatever has its source in three component of tobaccos. More a detailed description of the components and why they are there?

Yes. My experience (about 15 months now) is that I gain a greater understanding of the reviews @jiminks and elsewhere, over time.

 

[musicman]

Thanks for the clarifications and I realize that my comment came off as way too critical. Should have posed questions instead. I take it that when jiminks or another experienced reviewer detects “smoke” or “sugar” or whatever from three different component tobaccos it doesnt mean that he can detect three different variations of the same flavor but rather is explaining that the smoke, or sugar or whatever has its source in three component of tobaccos. More a detailed description of the components and why they are there?

I think that over time (I believe he has said it took him decades to develop his palate to this level) he has developed the ability to isolate the flavors of different constituent tobaccos in a blend, and he is further able to isolate the particular flavors that each individual constituent tobacco brings to the table. Again, this is all according to his palate, which is, of course, not yours (but most likely more sophisticated than yours or mine, due to his prodigious experience both as a smoker and a reviewer).

With all reviews, YMMV, as it's ultimately the opinion/palate of one smoker, and we all bring an infinite number of variables to the table when we smoke. I tend to gravitate towards jiminks' reviews due to his clearly laid out formula for reviewing. Once one is familiar with a number of blends and the flavors he is able to discern in them, one can use his reviews to determine that based on one's previous experience with blends he has reviewed, one may like them or not. Now, there's a few blends that I thought would be great due to his reviews, but more often than not, I find his reviews to be spot on, and very helpful in determining what I may or may not like.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

I value @jiminks reviews because they tell me the basics I want to know: does a tobacco burn hot, stay lit, leave a mess in the bowl, etc.

That he only gives Bob’s Chocolate 3 Stars tells me his taste buds need further education. And not only can it be an all day smoke, I have pulled all nighters with it back in the days when I faced deadlines for briefs.

 

[mingc]

I value @jiminks reviews because they tell me the basics I want to know: does a tobacco burn hot, stay lit, leave a mess in the bowl, etc.

That he only gives Bob’s Chocolate 3 Stars tells me his taste buds need further education.

Further proof is that he gave Holly's Non Plus Ultra only one star. Blasphemy! Not only does his palate require further education but his soul needs saving!

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

Further proof is that he gave Holly's Non Plus Ultra only one star. Blasphemy!

That he lived t write a review of that dogs breakfast says wonders. I don’t believe you can write a review on TR and award zero stars.

 

[FurCoat]

You can when you've sampled the separate blending components. Part of one's education is buying blending tobaccos and smoking them individually. You get a sense of what that component brings to the table. Then you get to experience the alchemy that's part of blending these components and the surprising ways they influence each other in a blend.
The respect that jiminks has earned from blenders speaks for itself.

I bought some clays and a slew of blending components. Taking the time to understand these tobaccos on their own was a great experience. You are spot on sable.

 

[FurCoat]

Smoked my first bowl today and I enjoyed it. All I will add is that in my bumble opinion, the blend needs a few months in the jar to settle in.